Newest Research on WHY You
Should Avoid SOY Products
by Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D.
(Click here for a printable version)
Cinderella's Dark Side
The propaganda that has created the soy sales miracle is
all the more remarkable because, only a few decades ago, the soybean was
considered unfit to eat - even in Asia. During the Chou Dynasty (1134-246 BC)
the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley,
wheat, millet and rice.
However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from
earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the
pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the
plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure.
Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its
use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of
fixing nitrogen.13
The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of
fermentation techniques, some time during the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods
were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and soy sauce.
At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century BC, Chinese
scientists discovered that a purée of cooked soybeans could be precipitated
with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to
make a smooth, pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and
precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably
Japan and Indonesia.
The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did
other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of
natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme
inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein
digestion.
These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are
not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious
gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino
acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement
and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.14
Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting
substance that causes red blood cells to clump together.
Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors.
Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally.
Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation,
so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to
incorporate soy foods into their diets.
In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in
the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus, in tofu and bean curd, growth
depressants are reduced in quantity but not completely eliminated.
SOY ALSO CONTAINS
GOITROGENS - SUBSTANCES THAT DEPRESS THYROID FUNCTION.
Additionally 99% a very large percentage of soy is
genetically modified and it also has one of the highest percentages
contamination by pesticides of any of our foods.
Soybeans are high in phytic acid, present in the bran or
hulls of all seeds. It's a substance that can block the uptake of essential
minerals - calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc - in the
intestinal tract.
Although not a household word, phytic acid has been
extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of articles on the effects of
phytic acid in the current scientific literature. Scientists are in general
agreement that grain- and legume-based diets high in phytates contribute to
widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.15
Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are
present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of
soy- and grain-based diets prevents their absorption.
The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any
grain or legume that has been studied,16 and the phytates in soy are highly
resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking.17
Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content
of soybeans.
When precipitated soy products like tofu are consumed with
meat, the mineral-blocking effects of the phytates are reduced.18 The Japanese
traditionally eat a small amount of tofu or miso as part of a mineral-rich fish
broth, followed by a serving of meat or fish.
Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute
for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of
calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known; those of zinc are less
so.
Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is needed
for optimal development and functioning of the brain and nervous system. It
plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the
blood-sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed
for a healthy reproductive system.
Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a
role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc
absorption more completely than with other minerals.19 Zinc deficiency can cause
a "spacey" feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the
"high" of spiritual enlightenment.
Milk drinking is given as the reason why second-generation
Japanese in America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators
postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American diet - whatever may
be its other deficiencies - is the true explanation, pointing out that both
Asian and Western children who do not get enough meat and fish products to
counteract the effects of a high phytate diet, frequently suffer rickets,
stunting and other growth problems.20
SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE: NOT SO FRIENDLY
Soy processors have worked hard to get these antinutrients
out of the finished product, particularly soy protein isolate (SPI) which is the
key ingredient in most soy foods that imitate meat and dairy products, including
baby formulas and some brands of soy milk.
SPI is not something you can make in your own kitchen.
Production takes place in industrial factories where a slurry of soy beans is
first mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then precipitated and
separated using an acid wash and, finally, neutralized in an alkaline solution.
Acid washing in aluminum tanks leaches high levels of
aluminum into the final product. The resultant curds are spray- dried at high
temperatures to produce a high-protein powder. A final indignity to the original
soybean is high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein
isolate to produce textured vegetable protein (TVP).
Much of the trypsin inhibitor content can be removed through
high-temperature processing, but not all. Trypsin inhibitor content of soy
protein isolate can vary as much as fivefold.21 (In rats, even low-level trypsin
inhibitor SPI feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls.22)
But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate
side-effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered
largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements
for normal growth.
Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during
spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline
processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy
protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong
"beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements
for vitamins E, K, D and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium,
magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining
in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals
fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland,
and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
Yet soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are
used extensively in school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet
beverages and fast food products. They are heavily promoted in third world
countries and form the basis of many food giveaway programs.
In spite of poor results in animal feeding trials, the soy
industry has sponsored a number of studies designed to show that soy protein
products can be used in human diets as a replacement for traditional foods.
An example is "Nutritional Quality of Soy Bean Protein
Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age", sponsored by the Ralston
Purina Company.28 A group of Central American children suffering from
malnutrition was first stabilized and brought into better health by feeding them
native foods, including meat and dairy products. Then, for a two-week period,
these traditional foods were replaced by a drink made of soy protein isolate and
sugar.
All nitrogen taken in and all nitrogen excreted was measured
in truly Orwellian fashion: the children were weighed naked every morning, and
all excrement and vomit gathered up for analysis. The researchers found that the
children retained nitrogen and that their growth was "adequate", so
the experiment was declared a success.
Whether the children were actually healthy on such a diet, or
could remain so over a long period, is another matter. The researchers noted
that the children vomited "occasionally", usually after finishing a
meal; that over half suffered from periods of moderate diarrhea; that some had
upper respiratory infections; and that others suffered from rash and fever.
It should be noted that the researchers did not dare to use
soy products to help the children recover from malnutrition, and were obliged to
supplement the soy-sugar mixture with nutrients largely absent in soy products -
notably, vitamins A, D and B12, iron, iodine and zinc.
MARKETING THE PERFECT FOOD
"Just imagine you could grow the perfect food. This food
not only would provide affordable nutrition, but also would be delicious and
easy to prepare in a variety of ways. It would be a healthful food, with no
saturated fat. In fact, you would be growing a virtual fountain of youth on your
back forty."
The author is Dean Houghton, writing for The Furrow,2 a
magazine published in 12 languages by John Deere. "This ideal food would
help prevent, and perhaps reverse, some of the world's most dreaded diseases.
You could grow this miracle crop in a variety of soils and climates. Its
cultivation would build up, not deplete, the land...this miracle food already
exists... It's called soy."
Just imagine. Farmers have been imagining - and planting more
soy. What was once a minor crop, listed in the 1913 US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) handbook not as a food but as an industrial product, now covers 72
million acres of American farmland. Much of this harvest will be used to feed
chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows and salmon. Another large fraction will be
squeezed to produce oil for margarine, shortenings and salad dressings.
Advances in technology make it possible to produce isolated
soy protein from what was once considered a waste product - the defatted,
high-protein soy chips - and then transform something that looks and smells
terrible into products that can be consumed by human beings. Flavorings,
preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers and synthetic nutrients have turned soy
protein isolate, the food processors' ugly duckling, into a New Age Cinderella.
The new fairy-tale food has been marketed not so much for her
beauty but for her virtues. Early on, products based on soy protein isolate were
sold as extenders and meat substitutes - a strategy that failed to produce the
requisite consumer demand. The industry changed its approach.
"The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the
less affluent society," said an industry spokesman, "is to have the
product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society."3 So soy is
now sold to the upscale consumer, not as a cheap, poverty food but as a miracle
substance that will prevent heart disease and cancer, whisk away hot flushes,
build strong bones and keep us forever young.
The competition - meat, milk, cheese, butter and eggs - has
been duly demonised by the appropriate government bodies. Soy serves as meat and
milk for a new generation of virtuous vegetarians.
MARKETING COSTS MONEY
This is especially when it needs to be bolstered with
"research", but there's plenty of funds available. All soybean
producers pay a mandatory assessment of one-half to one per cent of the net
market price of soybeans. The total - something like US $80 million annually4 -
supports United Soybean's program to "strengthen the position of soybeans
in the marketplace and maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for uses
for soybeans and soybean products".
State soybean councils from Maryland, Nebraska, Delaware,
Arkansas, Virginia, North Dakota and Michigan provide another $2.5 million for
"research".5 Private companies like Archer Daniels Midland also
contribute their share. ADM spent $4.7 million for advertising on Meet the Press
and $4.3 million on Face the Nation during the course of a year.6
Public relations firms help convert research projects into
newspaper articles and advertising copy, and law firms lobby for favorable
government regulations. IMF money funds soy processing plants in foreign
countries, and free trade policies keep soybean abundance flowing to overseas
destinations.
The push for more soy has been relentless and global in its
reach. Soy protein is now found in most supermarket breads. It is being used to
transform "the humble tortilla, Mexico's corn-based staple food, into a
protein-fortified 'super-tortilla' that would give a nutritional boost to the
nearly 20 million Mexicans who live in extreme poverty".7 Advertising for a
new soy-enriched loaf from Allied Bakeries in Britain targets
menopausal women seeking relief from hot flushes. Sales are running at a quarter
of a million loaves per week.8
The soy industry hired Norman Robert Associates, a public
relations firm, to "get more soy products onto school menus".9 The
USDA responded with a proposal to scrap the 30 per cent limit for soy in school
lunches. The NuMenu program would allow unlimited use of soy in student meals.
With soy added to hamburgers, tacos and lasagna, dieticians can get the total
fat content below 30 per cent of calories, thereby conforming to government
dictates. "With the soy-enhanced food items, students are receiving better
servings of nutrients and less cholesterol and fat."
Soy milk has posted the biggest gains, soaring from $2
million in 1980 to $300 million in the US last year.10 Recent advances in
processing have transformed the gray, thin, bitter, beany-tasting Asian beverage
into a product that Western consumers will accept - one that tastes like a
milkshake, but without the guilt.
Processing miracles, good packaging, massive advertising and
a marketing strategy that stresses the products' possible health benefits
account for increasing sales to all age groups. For example, reports that soy
helps prevent prostate cancer have made soy milk acceptable to middle-aged men.
"You don't have to twist the arm of a 55- to 60-year-old guy to get him to
try soy milk," says Mark Messina. Michael Milken, former junk bond
financier, has helped the industry shed its hippie image with well-publicized
efforts to consume 40 grams of soy protein daily.
America today, tomorrow the world. Soy milk sales are rising
in Canada, even though soy milk there costs twice as much as cow's milk. Soybean
milk processing plants are sprouting up in places like Kenya.11 Even China,
where soy really is a poverty food and whose people want more meat, not tofu,
has opted to build Western-style soy factories rather than develop western
grasslands for grazing animals.12
FDA HEALTH CLAIM CHALLENGED
On October 25, 1999 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
decided to allow a health claim for products "low in saturated fat and
cholesterol" that contain 6.25 grams of soy protein per serving. Breakfast
cereals, baked goods, convenience food, smoothie mixes and meat substitutes
could now be sold with labels touting benefits to cardiovascular health, as long
as these products contained one heaping teaspoon of soy protein per 100-gram
serving.
The best marketing strategy for a product that is inherently
unhealthy is, of course, a health claim.
"The road to FDA approval," writes a soy apologist,
"was long and demanding, consisting of a detailed review of human clinical
data collected from more than 40 scientific studies conducted over the last 20
years. Soy protein was found to be one of the rare foods that had sufficient
scientific evidence not only to qualify for an FDA health claim proposal but to
ultimately pass the rigorous approval process."29
The "long and demanding" road to FDA approval
actually took a few unexpected turns. The original petition, submitted by
Protein Technology International, requested a health claim for isoflavones, the
estrogen-like compounds found plentifully in soybeans, based on assertions that
"only soy protein that has been processed in a manner in which isoflavones
are retained will result in cholesterol lowering".
In 1998, the FDA made the unprecedented move of rewriting
PTI's petition, removing any reference to the phyto-estrogens and substituting a
claim for soy protein - a move that was in direct contradiction to the agency's
regulations. The FDA is authorized to make rulings only on substances presented
by petition.
The abrupt change in direction was no doubt due to the fact
that a number of researchers, including scientists employed by the US
Government, submitted documents indicating that isoflavones are toxic.
The FDA had also received, early in 1998, the final British
Government report on phytoestrogens, which failed to find much evidence of
benefit and warned against potential adverse effects.30
Even with the change to soy protein isolate, FDA bureaucrats
engaged in the "rigorous approval process" were forced to deal nimbly
with concerns about mineral blocking effects, enzyme inhibitors, goitrogenicity,
endocrine disruption, reproductive problems and increased allergic reactions
from consumption of soy products.31
One of the strongest letters of protest came from Dr Dan
Sheehan and Dr Daniel Doerge, government researchers at the National Center for
Toxicological Research.32 Their pleas for warning labels were dismissed as
unwarranted.
"Sufficient scientific evidence" of soy's
cholesterol-lowering properties is drawn largely from a 1995 meta-analysis by Dr
James Anderson, sponsored by Protein Technologies International and published in
the New England Journal of Medicine.33
A meta-analysis is a review and summary of the results of
many clinical studies on the same subject. Use of meta-analyses to draw general
conclusions has come under sharp criticism by members of the scientific
community.
"Researchers substituting meta-analysis for more
rigorous trials risk making faulty assumptions and indulging in creative
accounting," says Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society of New
Zealand. "Like is not being lumped with like. Little lumps and big lumps of
data are being gathered together by various groups."34
There is the added temptation for researchers, particularly
researchers funded by a company like Protein Technologies International, to
leave out studies that would prevent the desired conclusions. Dr Anderson
discarded eight studies for various reasons, leaving a remainder of twenty-nine.
The published report suggested that individuals with
cholesterol levels over 250 mg/dl would experience a "significant"
reduction of 7 to 20 per cent in levels of serum cholesterol if they substituted
soy protein for animal protein. Cholesterol reduction was insignificant for
individuals whose cholesterol was lower than 250 mg/dl.
In other words, for most of us, giving up steak and eating
vegieburgers instead will not bring down blood cholesterol levels. The health
claim that the FDA approved "after detailed review of human clinical
data" fails to inform the consumer about these important details.
Research that ties soy to positive effects on cholesterol
levels is "incredibly immature", said Ronald M. Krauss, MD, head of
the Molecular Medical Research Program and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.35 He might have added that studies in which cholesterol levels were
lowered through either diet or drugs have consistently resulted in a greater
number of deaths in the treatment groups than in controls - deaths from stroke,
cancer, intestinal disorders, accident and suicide.36
Cholesterol-lowering measures in the US have fuelled a $60
billion per year cholesterol-lowering industry, but have not saved us from the
ravages of heart disease.
SOY AND CANCER
The new FDA ruling does not allow any claims about cancer
prevention on food packages, but that has not restrained the industry and its
marketers from making them in their promotional literature.
"In addition to protecting the heart," says a
vitamin company brochure, "soy has demonstrated powerful anticancer
benefits...the Japanese, who eat 30 times as much soy as North Americans, have a
lower incidence of cancers of the breast, uterus and prostate."37
Indeed they do. But the Japanese, and Asians in general, have
much higher rates of other types of cancer, particularly cancer of the
esophagus, stomach, pancreas and liver.38 Asians throughout the world also have
high rates of thyroid cancer.39 The logic that links low rates of reproductive
cancers to soy consumption requires attribution of high rates of thyroid and
digestive cancers to the same foods, particularly as soy causes these types of
cancers in laboratory rats.
Just how much soy do Asians eat? A 1998 survey found that the
average daily amount of soy protein consumed in Japan was about eight grams for
men and seven for women - less than two teaspoons.40 The famous Cornell China
Study, conducted by Colin T. Campbell, found that legume consumption in China
varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about twelve.41
Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then
the maximum consumption is about 40 grams, or less than three tablespoons per
day, with an average consumption of about nine grams, or less than two
teaspoons. A survey conducted in the 1930s found that soy foods accounted for
only 1.5 per cent of calories in the Chinese diet, compared with 65 per cent of
calories from pork.42 (Asians traditionally cooked with lard, not vegetable
oil!)
Traditionally fermented soy products make a delicious,
natural seasoning that may supply important nutritional factors in the Asian
diet. But except in times of famine, Asians consume soy products only in small
amounts, as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods - with one
exception. Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian
lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they dampen libido.
It was a 1994 meta-analysis by Mark Messina, published in
Nutrition and Cancer, that fuelled speculation on soy's anticarcinogenic
properties.43 Messina noted that in 26 animal studies, 65 per cent reported
protective effects from soy. He conveniently neglected to include at least one
study in which soy feeding caused pancreatic cancer - the 1985 study by
Rackis.44 In the human studies he listed, the results were mixed.
A few showed some protective effect, but most showed no
correlation at all between soy consumption and cancer rates. He concluded that
"the data in this review cannot be used as a basis for claiming that soy
intake decreases cancer risk". Yet in his subsequent book, The Simple
Soybean and Your Health, Messina makes just such a claim, recommending one cup
or 230 grams of soy products per day in his "optimal" diet as a way to
prevent cancer.
Thousands of women are now consuming soy in the belief that
it protects them against breast cancer. Yet, in 1996, researchers found that
women consuming soy protein isolate had an increased incidence of epithelial
hyperplasia, a condition that presages malignancies.45 A year later, dietary
genistein was found to stimulate breast cells to enter the cell cycle - a
discovery that led the study authors to conclude that women should not consume
soy products to prevent breast cancer.46
PHYTOESTROGENS: PANACEA OR POISON?
The male species of tropical birds carries the drab plumage
of the female at birth and 'colors up' at maturity, somewhere between nine and
24 months.
In 1991, Richard and Valerie James, bird breeders in
Whangerai, New Zealand, purchased a new kind of feed for their birds - one based
largely on soy protein.47 When soy-based feed was used, their birds 'colored up'
after just a few months. In fact, one bird-food manufacturer claimed that this
early development was an advantage imparted by the feed.
A 1992 ad for Roudybush feed formula showed a picture of the
male crimson rosella, an Australian parrot that acquires beautiful red plumage
at 18 to 24 months, already brightly colored at 11 weeks old.
Unfortunately, in the ensuing years, there was decreased
fertility in the birds, with precocious maturation, deformed, stunted and
stillborn babies, and premature deaths, especially among females, with the
result that the total population in the aviaries went into steady decline.
The birds suffered beak and bone deformities, goiter, immune
system disorders and pathological, aggressive behavior. Autopsy revealed
digestive organs in a state of disintegration. The list of problems corresponded
with many of the problems the Jameses had encountered in their two children, who
had been fed soy-based infant formula.
Startled, aghast, angry, the Jameses hired toxicologist Mike
Fitzpatrick. PhD, to investigate further. Dr Fitzpatrick's literature review
uncovered evidence that soy consumption has been linked to numerous disorders,
including infertility, increased cancer and infantile leukemia; and, in studies
dating back to the 1950s,48 that genistein in soy causes endocrine disruption in
animals.
Dr Fitzpatrick also analyzed the bird feed and found that it
contained high levels of phytoestrogens, especially genistein. When the Jameses
discontinued using soy-based feed, the flock gradually returned to normal
breeding habits and behavior.
The Jameses embarked on a private crusade to warn the public
and government officials about toxins in soy foods, particularly the
endocrine-disrupting isoflavones, genistein and diadzen. Protein Technology
International received their material in 1994.
In 1991, Japanese researchers reported that consumption of as
little as 30 grams or two tablespoons of soybeans per day for only one month
resulted in a significant increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone.49 Diffuse
goiter and hypothyroidism appeared in some of the subjects and many complained
of constipation, fatigue and lethargy, even though their intake of iodine was
adequate.
In 1997, researchers from the FDA's National Center for
Toxicological Research made the embarrassing discovery that the goitrogenic
components of soy were the very same isoflavones.50
Twenty-five grams of soy protein isolate, the minimum amount
PTI claimed to have cholesterol-lowering effects, contains from 50 to 70 mg of
isoflavones. It took only 45 mg of isoflavones in premenopausal women to exert
significant biological effects, including a reduction in hormones needed for
adequate thyroid function. These effects lingered for three months after soy
consumption was discontinued.51
One hundred grams of soy protein - the maximum suggested
cholesterol-lowering dose, and the amount recommended by Protein Technologies
International - can contain almost 600 mg of isoflavones,52 an amount that is
undeniably toxic. In 1992, the Swiss health service estimated that 100 grams of
soy protein provided the estrogenic equivalent of the Pill.53
In vitro studies suggest that isoflavones inhibit synthesis
of estradiol and other steroid hormones.54 Reproductive problems, infertility,
thyroid disease and liver disease due to dietary intake of isoflavones have been
observed for several species of animals including mice, cheetah, quail, pigs,
rats, sturgeon and sheep.55
It is the isoflavones in soy that are said to have a
favorable effect on postmenopausal symptoms, including hot flushes, and
protection from osteoporosis. Quantification of discomfort from hot flushes is
extremely subjective, and most studies show that control subjects report
reduction in discomfort in amounts equal to subjects given soy.56 The claim that
soy prevents osteoporosis is extraordinary, given that soy foods block calcium
and cause vitamin D deficiencies.
If Asians indeed have lower rates of osteoporosis than
Westerners, it is because their diet provides plenty of vitamin D from shrimp,
lard and seafood, and plenty of calcium from bone broths. The reason that
Westerners have such high rates of osteoporosis is because they have substituted
soy oil for butter, which is a traditional source of vitamin D and other
fat-soluble activators needed for calcium absorption.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS FOR BABIES
But it was the isoflavones in infant formula that gave the
Jameses the most cause for concern. In 1998, investigators reported that the
daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is 6 to11 times
higher on a body-weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults
consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in infants fed
soy-based formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than plasma estradiol
concentrations in infants on cow's milk formula.57
Approximately 25 per cent of bottle-fed children in the US
receive soy-based formula - a much higher percentage than in other parts of the
Western world. Fitzpatrick estimated that an infant exclusively fed soy formula
receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least five birth
control pills per day.58 By contrast, almost no phytoestrogens have been
detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother
consumes soy products.
Scientists have known for years that soy-based formula can
cause thyroid problems in babies. But what are the effects of soy products on
the hormonal development of the infant, both male and female?
Male infants undergo a "testosterone surge" during
the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those
of an adult male. During this period, the infant is programmed to express male
characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of his sexual organs
and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain
characteristic of male behavior.
In monkeys, deficiency of male hormones impairs the
development of spatial perception (which, in humans, is normally more acute in
men than in women), of learning ability and of visual discrimination tasks (such
as would be required for reading).59 It goes without saying that future patterns
of sexual orientation may also be influenced by the early hormonal environment.
Male children exposed during gestation to diethylstilbestrol
(DES), a synthetic estrogen that has effects on animals similar to those of
phytoestrogens from soy, had testes smaller than normal on manturation.60
Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have
reached epidemic proportions. Soy infant feeding - which began in earnest in the
early 1970s - cannot be ignored as a probable cause for these tragic
developments.
As for girls, an alarming number are entering puberty much
earlier than normal, according to a recent study reported in the journal
Pediatrics.61 Investigators found that one per cent of all girls now show signs
of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three;
by age eight, 14.7 per cent of white girls and almost 50 per cent of
African-American girls have one or both of these characteristics.
New data indicate that environmental estrogens such as PCBs
and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) may cause early sexual development in
girls.62 In the 1986 Puerto Rico Premature Thelarche study, the most significant
dietary association with premature sexual development was not chicken - as
reported in the press - but soy infant formula.63
The consequences of this truncated childhood are tragic.
Young girls with mature bodies must cope with feelings and urges that most
children are not well-equipped to handle. And early maturation in girls is
frequently a harbinger for problems with the reproductive system later in life,
including failure to menstruate, infertility and breast cancer.
Parents who have contacted the Jameses recount other problems
associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula, including
extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary
insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome - the same
endocrine and digestive havoc that afflicted the Jameses' parrots.
DISSENSION IN THE RANKS
Organizers of the Third International Soy Symposium would be
hard-pressed to call the conference an unqualified success. On the second day of
the symposium, the London-based Food Commission and the Weston A. Price
Foundation of Washington, DC, held a joint press conference, in the same hotel
as the symposium, to present concerns about soy infant formula.
Industry representatives sat stony-faced through the
recitation of potential dangers and a plea from concerned scientists and parents
to pull soy-based infant formula from the market. Under pressure from the
Jameses, the New Zealand Government had issued a health warning about soy infant
formula in 1998; it was time for the American government to do the same.
On the last day of the symposium, presentations on new
findings related to toxicity sent a well-oxygenated chill through the giddy
helium hype. Dr Lon White reported on a study of Japanese Americans living in
Hawaii, that showed a significant statistical relationship between two or more
servings of tofu a week and "accelerated brain aging".64
Those participants who consumed tofu in mid-life had lower
cognitive function in late life and a greater incidence of Alzheimer's disease
and dementia. "What's more," said Dr White, "those who ate a lot
of tofu, by the time they were 75 or 80 looked five years older".65 White
and his colleagues blamed the negative effects on isoflavones - a finding that
supports an earlier study in which postmenopausal women with higher levels of
circulating estrogen experienced greater cognitive decline.66
Scientists Daniel Sheehan and Daniel Doerge, from the
National Center for Toxicological Research, ruined PTI's day by presenting
findings from rat feeding studies, indicating that genistein in soy foods causes
irreversible damage to enzymes that synthesise thyroid hormones.67
"The association between soybean consumption and goiter
in animals and humans has a long history," wrote Dr Doerge. "Current
evidence for the beneficial effects of soy requires a full understanding of
potential adverse effects as well."
Dr Claude Hughes reported that rats born to mothers that were
fed genistein had decreased birth weights compared to controls, and onset of
puberty occurred earlier in male offspring.68 His research suggested that the
effects observed in rats "...will be at least somewhat predictive of what
occurs in humans.
There is no reason to assume that there will be gross
malformations of fetuses but there may be subtle changes, such as
neurobehavioral attributes, immune function and sex hormone levels." The
results, he said, "could be nothing or could be something of great
concern...if mom is eating something that can act like sex hormones, it is
logical to wonder if that could change the baby's development".69
A study of babies born to vegetarian mothers, published in
January 2000, indicated just what those changes in baby's development might be.
Mothers who ate a vegetarian diet during pregnancy had a fivefold greater risk
of delivering a boy with hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis.70 The authors
of the study suggested that the cause was greater exposure to phytoestrogens in
soy foods popular with vegetarians.
Problems with female offspring of vegetarian mothers are more
likely to show up later in life. While soy's estrogenic effect is less than that
of diethylstilbestrol (DES), the dose is likely to be higher because it's
consumed as a food, not taken as a drug. Daughters of women who took DES during
pregnancy suffered from infertility and cancer when they reached their twenties.
QUESTION MARKS OVER GRAS STATUS
Lurking in the background of industry hype for soy is the
nagging question of whether it's even legal to add soy protein isolate to food.
All food additives not in common use prior to 1958, including casein protein
from milk, must have GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status. In 1972, the
Nixon administration directed a re-examination of substances believed to be
GRAS, in the light of any scientific information then available.
This re-examination included casein protein that became
codified as GRAS in 1978. In 1974, the FDA obtained a literature review of soy
protein because, as soy protein had not been used in food until 1959 and was not
even in common use in the early 1970s, it was not eligible to have its GRAS
status grandfathered under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.71
The scientific literature up to 1974 recognized many
antinutrients in factory-made soy protein, including trypsin inhibitors, phytic
acid and genistein. But the FDA literature review dismissed discussion of
adverse impacts, with the statement that it was important for "adequate
processing" to remove them.
Genistein could be removed with an alcohol wash, but it was
an expensive procedure that processors avoided. Later studies determined that
trypsin inhibitor content could be removed only with long periods of heat and
pressure, but the FDA has imposed no requirements for manufacturers to do so.
The FDA was more concerned with toxins formed during
processing, specifically nitrites and lysinoalanine.72 Even at low levels of
consumption - averaging one-third of a gram per day at the time - the presence
of these carcinogens was considered too great a threat to public health to allow
GRAS status.
Soy protein did have approval for use as a binder in
cardboard boxes, and this approval was allowed to continue, as researchers
considered that migration of nitrites from the box into the food contents would
be too small to constitute a cancer risk. FDA officials called for safety
specifications and monitoring procedures before granting of GRAS status for
food.
These were never performed. To this day, use of soy protein
is codified as GRAS only for this limited industrial use as a cardboard binder.
This means that soy protein must be subject to premarket approval procedures
each time manufacturers intend to use it as a food or add it to a food.
Soy protein was introduced into infant formula in the early
1960s. It was a new product with no history of any use at all. As soy protein
did not have GRAS status, premarket approval was required. This was not and
still has not been granted. The key ingredient of soy infant formula is not
recognized as safe.
THE NEXT ASBESTOS?
"Against the backdrop of widespread praise...there is
growing suspicion that soy - despite its undisputed benefits - may pose some
health hazards," writes Marian Burros, a leading food writer for the New
York Times. More than any other writer, Ms Burros's endorsement of a low-fat,
largely vegetarian diet has herded Americans into supermarket aisles featuring
soy foods.
Yet her January 26, 2000 article, "Doubts Cloud Rosy
News on Soy", contains the following alarming statement: "Not one of
the 18 scientists interviewed for this column was willing to say that taking
isoflavones was risk free." Ms Burros did not enumerate the risks, nor did
she mention that the recommended 25 daily grams of soy protein contain enough
isoflavones to cause problems in sensitive individuals, but it was evident that
the industry had recognized the need to cover itself.
Because the industry is extremely exposed...contingency
lawyers will soon discover that the number of potential plaintiffs can be
counted in the millions and the pockets are very, very deep. Juries will hear
something like the following: "The industry has known for years that soy
contains many toxins.
At first they told the public that the toxins were removed by
processing. When it became apparent that processing could not get rid of them,
they claimed that these substances were beneficial. Your government granted a
health claim to a substance that is poisonous, and the industry lied to the
public to sell more soy."
The "industry" includes merchants, manufacturers,
scientists, publicists, bureaucrats, former bond financiers, food writers,
vitamin companies and retail stores. Farmers will probably escape because they
were duped like the rest of us. But they need to find something else to grow
before the soy bubble bursts and the market collapses: grass-fed livestock,
designer vegetables...or hemp to make paper for thousands and thousands of legal
briefs.
Extracted from Nexus
Magazine, Volume 7, Number 3 (April-May 2000)
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Sally Fallon is
the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically
Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (1999, 2nd edition, New Trends
Publishing, tel +1 877 707 1776 or +1 219 268 2601) and President of the Weston
A. Price Foundation, Washington, DC (www.WestonAPrice.org)
Mary G. Enig, Ph.D.,
a nutritionist widely known for her research on the nutritional aspects of fats
and oils, is a consultant, clinician, and the Director of the Nutritional
Sciences Division of Enig Associates, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland.
She received her PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the
University of Maryland, College Park in 1984, taught a graduate course in
nutrient-drug interactions for the University's Graduate Program in Nutritional
Sciences, and held a Faculty Research Associateship from 1984 through 1991 with
the Lipids Research Group in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Dr. Enig is a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition,
and a member of the American Institute of Nutrition. Her many years of
experience as a "bench chemist" in the analysis of food fats and oils,
provides a foundation for her active roles in food labeling and composition
issues at the federal and state levels.
Dr. Enig is a Consulting Editor to the "Journal of the
American College of Nutrition" and formerly served as a Contributing Editor
to "Clinical Nutrition." She has published 14 scientific papers on the
subject of food fats and oils, several chapters on nutrition for books, and
presented over 35 scientific papers on food and nutrition topics.
She is the President of the Maryland Nutritionists
Association, past President of the Coalition of Nutritionists of Maryland and
was appointed by the Governor in 1986 to the Maryland State Advisory Council on
Nutrition and served as the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee until the
Council was disbanded in 1988.
COMMENT:
Sally Fallon and Dr. Enig are to be highly commended for this much needed soy
update. Together they have compiled the most definitive document to date on why
one should avoid soy. This is a MAJOR work and I am hoping to promote it for the
national media attention that it deserves.
Another article on How Much Soy Asians Actually Eat
ENDNOTES:
1. Program for the Third International Symposium on the Role of Soy in
Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease, Sunday, October 31, through Wednesday,
November 3, 1999, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC.
2. Houghton, Dean, "Healthful Harvest", The Furrow, January 2000, pp.
10-13.
3. Coleman, Richard J., "Vegetable Protein - A Delayed Birth?" Journal
of the American Oil Chemists' Society 52:238A, April 1975.
4. See www/unitedsoybean.org.
5. These are listed in www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.
6. Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1995.
7. Smith, James F., "Healthier tortillas could lead to healthier
Mexico", Denver Post, August 22, 1999, p. 26A.
8. "Bakery says new loaf can help reduce hot flushes", Reuters,
September 15, 1997.
9. "Beefing Up Burgers with Soy Products at School", Nutrition Week,
Community Nutrition Institute, Washington, DC, June 5, 1998, p. 2.
10. Urquhart, John, "A Health Food Hits Big Time", Wall Street
Journal, August 3, 1999, p. B1
11. "Soyabean Milk Plant in Kenya", Africa News Service, September
1998.
12. Simoons, Frederick J., Food in China: A Cultural and Historical Inquiry, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, 1991, p. 64.
13. Katz, Solomon H., "Food and Biocultural Evolution: A Model for the
Investigation of Modern Nutritional Problems", Nutritional Anthropology,
Alan R. Liss Inc., 1987, p. 50.
14. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I.
Background, objectives and procedural details", Qualification of Plant
Foods in Human Nutrition, vol. 35, 1985.
15. Van Rensburg et al., "Nutritional status of African populations
predisposed to esophageal cancer", Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 4, 1983, pp.
206-216; Moser, P.B. et al., "Copper, iron, zinc and selenium dietary
intake and status of Nepalese lactating women and their breastfed infants",
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 47:729-734, April 1988; Harland, B.F. et
al., "Nutritional status and phytate: zinc and phytate X calcium: zinc
dietary molar ratios of lacto-ovovegetarian Trappist monks: 10 years
later", Journal of the American Dietetic Association 88:1562-1566, December
1988.
16. El Tiney, A.H., "Proximate Composition and Mineral and Phytate Contents
of Legumes Grown in Sudan", Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (1989)
2:6778.
17. Ologhobo, A.D. et al., "Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some
Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing", Journal of
Food Science 49(1):199-201, January/February 1984.
18. Sandstrom, B. et al., "Effect of protein level and protein source on
zinc absorption in humans", Journal of Nutrition 119(1):48-53, January
1989; Tait, Susan et al., "The availability of minerals in food, with
particular reference to iron", Journal of Research in Society and Health
103(2):74-77, April 1983.
19. Phytate reduction of zinc absorption has been demonstrated in numerous
studies. These results are summarised in Leviton, Richard, Tofu, Tempeh, Miso
and Other Soyfoods: The 'Food of the Future' - How to Enjoy Its Spectacular
Health Benefits, Keats Publishing, Inc., New Canaan, CT, USA, 1982, p. 1415.
20. Mellanby, Edward, "Experimental rickets: The effect of cereals and
their interaction with other factors of diet and environment in producing
rickets", Journal of the Medical Research Council 93:265, March 1925;
Wills, M.R. et al., "Phytic Acid and Nutritional Rickets in
Immigrants", The Lancet, April 8,1972, pp. 771-773.
21. Rackis et al., ibid.
22. Rackis et al., ibid., p. 232.
23. Wallace, G.M., "Studies on the Processing and Properties of
Soymilk", Journal of Science and Food Agriculture 22:526-535, October 1971.
24. Rackis, et al., ibid., p. 22; "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy
Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences
Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (9650
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014), USA, Contract No. FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
25. See www/truthinlabeling.org.
26. Rackis, Joseph, J., "Biological and Physiological Factors in
Soybeans", Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 51:161A-170A,
January 1974.
27. Rackis, Joseph J. et al., "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study",
ibid.
28. Torum, Benjamin, "Nutritional Quality of Soybean Protein Isolates:
Studies in Children of Preschool Age", in Soy Protein and Human Nutrition,
Harold L Wilcke et al. (eds), Academic Press, New York, 1979.
29. Zreik, Marwin, CCN, "The Great Soy Protein Awakening", Total
Health 32(1), February 2000.
30. IEH Assessment on Phytoestrogens in the Human Diet, Final Report to the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, November 1997, p. 11.
31. Food Labeling: Health Claims: Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease, Food
and Drug Administration 21 CFR, Part 101 (Docket No. 98P-0683).
32. Sheegan, Daniel M. and Daniel R Doerge, Letter to Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), February 18, 1999.
33. Anderson, James W. et al., "Meta-analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein
Intake on Serum Lipids", New England Journal of Medicine (1995)
333:(5):276-282.
34. Guy, Camille, "Doctors warned against magic, quackery", New
Zealand Herald, September 9, 1995, section 8, p. 5.
35. Sander, Kate and Hilary Wilson, "FDA approves new health claim for soy,
but litte fallout expected for dairy", Cheese Market News, October 22,
1999, p. 24.
36. Enig, Mary G. and Sally Fallon, "The Oiling of America", NEXUS
Magazine, December 1998-January 1999 and February-March 1999; also available at
www.WestonAPrice.org.
37. Natural Medicine News (L & H Vitamins, 32-33 47th Avenue, Long Island
City, NY 11101), USA, January/February 2000, p. 8.
38. Harras, Angela (ed.), Cancer Rates and Risks, National Institutes of Health,
National Cancer Institute, 1996, 4th edition.
39. Searle, Charles E. (ed.), Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1976.
40. Nagata, C. et al., Journal of Nutrition (1998) 128:209-213.
41. Campbell, Colin T. et al., The Cornell Project in China.
42. Chang, K.C. (ed.), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical
Perspectives, New Haven, 1977.
43. Messina, Mark J. et al., "Soy Intake and Cancer Risk: A Review of the
In Vitro and In Vivo Data", Nutrition and Cancer (1994) 21(2):113-131.
44. Rackis et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study", ibid.
45. Petrakis, N.L. et al., "Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on
breast secretion in pre- and post-menopausal women", Cancer Epid. Bio. Prev.
(1996) 5:785-794.
46. Dees, C. et al., "Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to
enter the cell cycle", Environmental Health Perspectives (1997) 105(Suppl.
3):633-636.
47. Woodhams, D.J., "Phytoestrogens and parrots: The anatomy of an
investigation", Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand (1995)
20:22-30.
48. Matrone, G. et al., "Effect of Genistin on Growth and Development of
the Male Mouse", Journal of Nutrition (1956) 235-240.
49. Ishizuki, Y. et al., "The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans
administered experimentally in healthy subjects", Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai
Zasshi (1991) 767:622-629.
50. Divi, R.L. et al., "Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean",
Biochemical Pharmacology (1997) 54:1087-1096.
51. Cassidy, A. et al., "Biological Effects of a Diet of Soy Protein Rich
in Isoflavones on the Menstrual Cycle of Premenopausal Women", American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1994) 60:333-340.
52. Murphy, P.A., "Phytoestrogen Content of Processed Soybean Foods",
Food Technology, January 1982, pp. 60-64.
53. Bulletin de L'Office Fédéral de la Santé Publique, no. 28, July 20, 1992.
54. Keung, W.M., "Dietary oestrogenic isoflavones are potent inhibitors of
B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase of P. testosteronii", Biochemical and
Biophysical Research Committee (1995) 215:1137-1144; Makela, S.I. et al.,
"Estrogen-specific 12 B-hydroxysteroid oxidoreductase type 1 (E.C.
1.1.1.62) as a possible target for the action of phytoestrogens", PSEBM
(1995) 208:51-59.
55. Setchell, K.D.R. et al., "Dietary oestrogens - a probable cause of
infertility and liver disease in captive cheetahs", Gastroenterology (1987)
93:225-233; Leopald, A.S., "Phytoestrogens: Adverse effects on reproduction
in California Quail," Science (1976) 191:98-100; Drane, H.M. et al., "Oestrogenic
activity of soya-bean products", Food, Cosmetics and Technology (1980)
18:425-427; Kimura, S. et al., "Development of malignant goiter by defatted
soybean with iodine-free diet in rats", Gann. (1976) 67:763-765; Pelissero,
C. et al., "Oestrogenic effect of dietary soybean meal on vitellogenesis in
cultured Siberian Sturgeon Acipenser baeri", Gen. Comp. End. (1991)
83:447-457; Braden et al., "The oestrogenic activity and metabolism of
certain isoflavones in sheep", Australian J. Agricultural Research (1967)
18:335-348.
56. Ginsburg, Jean and Giordana M. Prelevic, "Is there a proven place for
phytoestrogens in the menopause?", Climacteric (1999) 2:75-78.
57. Setchell, K.D. et al., "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the
metabolic fate of these early phytoestrogens in early life", American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 1998 Supplement, 1453S-1461S.
58. Irvine, C. et al., "The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean
Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding", New Zealand Medical Journal May 24,
1995, p. 318.
59. Hagger, C. and J. Bachevalier, "Visual habit formation in 3-month-old
monkeys (Macaca mulatta): reversal of sex difference following neonatal
manipulations of androgen", Behavior and Brain Research (1991) 45:57-63.
60. Ross, R.K. et al., "Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol
on age at onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys",
Canadian Medical Association Journal 128(10):1197-8, May 15, 1983.
61. Herman-Giddens, Marcia E. et al., "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and
Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric
Research in Office Settings Network", Pediatrics 99(4):505-512, April 1997.
62. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly 263, "The Wingspread
Statement", Part 1, December 11, 1991; Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski and
John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future, Little, Brown & Company, London,
1996.
63. Freni-Titulaer, L.W., "Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico: A search for
environmental factors", American Journal of Diseases of Children
140(12):1263-1267, December 1986.
64. White, Lon, "Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with
Accelerated Brain Aging", Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third
International Soy Symposium, November 1999, Program, p. 26.
65. Altonn, Helen, "Too much tofu induces 'brain aging', study shows",
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1999.
66. Journal of the American Geriatric Society (1998) 46:816-21.
67. Doerge, Daniel R., "Inactivation of Thyroid Peroxidase by Genistein and
Daidzein in Vitro and in Vivo; Mechanism for Anti-Thyroid Activity of Soy",
presented at the November 1999 Soy Symposium in Washington, DC, National Center
for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR 72029, USA.
68. Hughes, Claude, Center for Women's Health and Department of Obstetrics &
Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
69. Soy Intake May Affect Fetus", Reuters News Service, November 5, 1999.
70. "Vegetarian diet in pregnancy linked to birth defect", BJU
International 85:107-113, January 2000.
71. FDA ref 72/104, Report FDABF GRAS - 258.
72. "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food
Ingredients", prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation
of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) (9650 Rockville Pike,
Bethesda, MD 20014, USA), Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004, 1979.
Disclaimer - Newsletters are
based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola. They are not intended to replace a
one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and they are
not intended as medical advice. They are intended as a sharing of knowledge and
information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community.
Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon
your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.
(Click
here for a printable version)
Home
Contents
Grandma's Herbs Products
Roex Products
Shipping Policies
These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to
diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. This information is nutritional in nature
and should not be construed as medical advice. This notice is required by the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Copyright © 2008 MindBodyHealth All rights
reserved
Last modified:
September 22, 2008
